Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Peter Ormond reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Dominion of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter Ormond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]
Comments:
No.4 and No.5 are obviously not "reverts", and hence the 3RR was never violated. Peter Ormond 💬 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- They are obviously reverts. Disruptive users who refuse to acknowledge wrong-doing and insist on continuing disruptive edits will not be viewed well by the community. DrKay (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- No.4 and No.5 didn't "result in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". Period. Peter Ormond 💬 19:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- As shown by the diffs, User:Fowler&fowler added some files,[15] you removed them.[16] He re-added the files,[17] you removed them.[18] They are both reverts. You are reverting to a previous version that did not contain those files. Partial reverts still count as reverts. DrKay (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't remove all the files. And there's also a discussion going on at the talk page. Peter Ormond 💬 20:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- As shown by the diffs, User:Fowler&fowler added some files,[15] you removed them.[16] He re-added the files,[17] you removed them.[18] They are both reverts. You are reverting to a previous version that did not contain those files. Partial reverts still count as reverts. DrKay (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- No.4 and No.5 didn't "result in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". Period. Peter Ormond 💬 19:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Suggest protection for the article in its status quo state (whatever that was before the edit-dispute occurred), until a consensus can be achieved at the talkpage of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of this report. I was thinking about reporting him at WT:INDIA. He is a tendentious editor, who edits very quickly, in a slippery manner, and constantly engages in reverts that at first sight don't appear to be reverts, but their end result is that nothing changes He has been engaging in a naive form of original research on Dominion of India, where I suspect his edits have remained because the knowledgeable editors (and there are many) don't have the patience to keep engaging him. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a primary source, a secondary, and a tertiary. All are grist to his mill, it seems, as long as they can keep his status quo. If you change something, he quickly adds a couple of sources, not waiting to put them in a standard (cite book, citation, or cite web) format, such is his hurry to reintroduce his old POV. He thinks any correction made by someone else is a loss, a diminution of his POV, and he doesn't like to lose. We have been engaged in a kind of discussion on the talk page, but he became responsive only after he was reported here, and then only reluctantly. He had a Hindi anachronism below the name in the infobox. I explained to him two or three times that a name made up in the 21st-century for a political system that had ended in 1950 cannot be called the "official name" of that system in Hindi. He offered two "Hindi" sources. When I said, "Hindi did not become the official language of India before 26 January 1950, he quickly offered me as a retort the page Hindi Divas, which was incorrectly conflating the discussions of the draft constitution of India in 1949 and the promulgation in 1950 When I corrected that page, he quickly changed it back to his POV but in ever so slightly different language. What can I say? I've written large parts of the FA India (all of its history section). If I am having a hard time dealing with him then I don't know how an average WPian will fare. There is no question of status quo @GoodDay: when the status quo is promoting an obsolete, toxic, POV. Very sorry, but this is a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. He needs to be taken to the woodshed (metaphorically speaking) where he can mull over his unencyclopedic excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, I responded at the talk page before anything about me was published here. Secondly, your revision of Hindi Diwas didn't cite a source in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, content must be supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may add whatever you feel is correct, if supported by RS. Peter Ormond 💬 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS I've just looked at his user page. He seems to be in his junior year of high school. Perhaps the presiding admin will keep that in mind. Nothing too heavy handed. Also, if this page is only for admins, you may remove my blabbering here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bold of you to assume that I will reveal my real personal info here. Peter Ormond 💬 21:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is exactly the kind of problem that plagues your edits. I said something out of empathy for someone who might be as young as they say they are on their user page, the empathy rising from memories hearkening to my youth. And you seem to be arguing about that as well, about the fact that my literal reading of your user page is somehow my fault, and needs to be countered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's very easy to accuse editors of violations and all, but I suggest that you also look at your own behaviour and POV. You removed the clearly sourced emblem of the Dominion of India [19] without any reason, the source is from 1947. I restored it, but you again removed it without any reason.[20] May I ask what kind of behaviour is this?
- This is exactly the kind of problem that plagues your edits. I said something out of empathy for someone who might be as young as they say they are on their user page, the empathy rising from memories hearkening to my youth. And you seem to be arguing about that as well, about the fact that my literal reading of your user page is somehow my fault, and needs to be countered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bold of you to assume that I will reveal my real personal info here. Peter Ormond 💬 21:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of this report. I was thinking about reporting him at WT:INDIA. He is a tendentious editor, who edits very quickly, in a slippery manner, and constantly engages in reverts that at first sight don't appear to be reverts, but their end result is that nothing changes He has been engaging in a naive form of original research on Dominion of India, where I suspect his edits have remained because the knowledgeable editors (and there are many) don't have the patience to keep engaging him. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a primary source, a secondary, and a tertiary. All are grist to his mill, it seems, as long as they can keep his status quo. If you change something, he quickly adds a couple of sources, not waiting to put them in a standard (cite book, citation, or cite web) format, such is his hurry to reintroduce his old POV. He thinks any correction made by someone else is a loss, a diminution of his POV, and he doesn't like to lose. We have been engaged in a kind of discussion on the talk page, but he became responsive only after he was reported here, and then only reluctantly. He had a Hindi anachronism below the name in the infobox. I explained to him two or three times that a name made up in the 21st-century for a political system that had ended in 1950 cannot be called the "official name" of that system in Hindi. He offered two "Hindi" sources. When I said, "Hindi did not become the official language of India before 26 January 1950, he quickly offered me as a retort the page Hindi Divas, which was incorrectly conflating the discussions of the draft constitution of India in 1949 and the promulgation in 1950 When I corrected that page, he quickly changed it back to his POV but in ever so slightly different language. What can I say? I've written large parts of the FA India (all of its history section). If I am having a hard time dealing with him then I don't know how an average WPian will fare. There is no question of status quo @GoodDay: when the status quo is promoting an obsolete, toxic, POV. Very sorry, but this is a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. He needs to be taken to the woodshed (metaphorically speaking) where he can mull over his unencyclopedic excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again, you showed your POV, when you replaced the phrase "King of India" with "the British monarch" [21], though it was sourced within the article body. I then provided RS in the lead (with your desired standard 'cite book, citation, or cite web' format) and restored it, but you again removed it [22], and showed your POV. Your edit was also a violation of WP:REVONLY.
- I suggest you look into your own behavior and edit-warring. Peter Ormond 💬 21:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Dealer07 reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: Blocked)
Page: Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dealer07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1045037194
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/1045261581
- Special:Diff/1045272938
- Special:Diff/1045295630
- Special:Diff/1045302187
- Special:Diff/1045315240
- Special:Diff/1045317286
- Special:Diff/1045405191
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1045296206
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Permalink/1045310302#Kazakhstan mention
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1045318656
Comments:
I tried to defuse it on the talk page, and although Dealer07 did initially respond, they continued edit warring later. This is this user's fifth report to ANEW (1, 2, 3, 4), it previously led to a warning and a block. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- This user and another one tried to change an already existed version without an unanimous agreement (ps this version existed for at least 5 months). If there is a disagreement on a new version by at least one user, it cannot get approved unless consensus is found as far as I am concerned (ps2 the country they both want to add has not even debuted in the adult version of that competition so it will be just a needless and misleading add). Dealer07 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Dealer07: I am not sure I understand. You made a bold edit here? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This is still an issue. I also noticed there's a similar edit war on Serbia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've blocked Dealer07 for two weeks and Special:contributions/176.92.17.36, an IP he is using to avoid scrutiny, for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bbb23: the user is apparently still using IPs, see Special:Contributions/109.178.147.133. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八[IvanScrooge98](会話) 08:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @IvanScrooge98 / @Bbb23 It looks pretty obvious to me too. I've gone ahead and blocked the newest IP, and left a warning with @Dealer07. If this continues, semi-protecting the two articles might not be a bad idea. SQLQuery Me! 11:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: )
Page: Portal:Current events/2021 September 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: "Difficult to post due to fast paced nature of Portal:Current_events Multiple days, same behavior. Examples from Sept. 19th shown below. Behavior has been ongoing for months."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoriano97&type=revision&diff=1045470261&oldid=1043461440
Comments:
Long standing issue with user Alsoriano97 on the page Portal Current Events that has proved difficult to resolve due to rapid pace of Portal Current Events, and the current page changing every day. User has a history of 3+ reverts on multiple days over multiple months and has often been enforcing their personal view of what Portal Current Events "should" contain. User has been warned previously, and had a long discussion on the talk page of Portal Current Events that has been linked. Discussion has further examples of revert behavior. Have also archived list of all stories on Portal Current Events redacted (usually with limited comment) at User:Araesmojo/News_Stories_Redacted
User:52pd reported by User:Armegon (Result: protected)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: 52pd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Person was warned about edit warring on Godzilla vs. Kong and now has proceeded to harass me on my talk page. Please see my talk page’s revision history. Armegon (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Page protected for a period of 4 days (by way of WP:RFPP). Armegon, you've left all the parameters of this report blank. Please note for future reference that these are not optional. Failure to do so may be grounds to seeing your report dismissed offhand. El_C 22:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Darkwarriorblake is warned)
Page: User talk:Headbomb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): That was a comment in good faith. Using my 3rd revert because I can, to waste your time. Later buddy"
- 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "There ya go"
- 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): This is a legitimate discussion, answer the question since you've involved yourself in this edit"
- 22:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "/* What does this say "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters. For articles in academic journals, use Empty citation (help)."? */ new section"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Intentional edit warring and time wasting per last edit summary Using my 3rd revert because I can, to waste your time. Major WP:IDHT/WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality issues. Would not have reported otherwise, but intentional time wasting / edit warring is where I draw the line, especially when they were aware I had replied to them elsewhere [23]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- First was a new comment that was reverted by the user rather than engage in discussion for an unwarranted edit they made for something they weren't involved in. The second was a revert. The third was a brand new comment per his request. The fourth was a revert. So there are only two actual reverts there and two comments. Headbomb probably got a little confused as he wasn't reading the discussion and just blind reverting. I apologize that he's wasting your time. It's resolved now as the user isn't worth the time. Later Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're both behaving like children.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I did just have my 6th birthday. Time to play some GTA V.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday! You must've had too much cake and ice cream because the sugar is affecting your brain.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Despite my age, high blood pressure, no sugar. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday! You must've had too much cake and ice cream because the sugar is affecting your brain.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: that comment is unfounded. Headbomb and I have both tried to reason with Darkwarriorblake at User talk:Citation bot#Untitled_new_bug, and have been met with aggression and contempt and edit-warring and personal attacks such as this[24]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, I explained when you asked, and you started edit warring over in a double team with Headbomb, I don't think I started unreasonable, it was the two editors who refused to listed to anyone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- So Darkwarriorblake is right, and everyone else is wrong. Even tho Darkwarriorblake has made multiple reverts, and even tho Darkwarriorblake's malformed "bug report" mistook[25] Rolling Stone magazine for the band the Rolling Stones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I never said I was right, you act like I proclaimed myself some all knowing God, instead of just a regular god. I've provided research for why I disagree with your stance, and you've been unwilling to listen and Headbomb refused to discuss at all despite having inserted himself into the issue to double team an editor. I apologize for this malformed bug report you keep mentioning, it just said if you've had an issue click here and I added some notes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Headbomb refused to discuss at all", I've replied to you multiple times at User talk:Citation bot, well before you decided to explicitly waste my time with your 3rd revert like a petulant child. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Petulant god. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Headbomb refused to discuss at all", I've replied to you multiple times at User talk:Citation bot, well before you decided to explicitly waste my time with your 3rd revert like a petulant child. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Darkwarriorblake, above, at 23:43: "I never said I was right"
- Also
- Darkwarriorblake 22:30 Stop brute forcing the issue and accept you're wrong
- Darkwarriorblake 22:52 You and Headbomb are awfully confident for two people who haven't read the template guidelines and who are completely wrong
- Darkwarriorblake 23:09 I know it's hard to admit you're wrong and fix your bot, but fix your bot and stop blaming other editors for your failings and/or inability to read
- Darkwarriorblake 22:48 you have no idea what you're talking about!
- --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I never said I was right, you act like I proclaimed myself some all knowing God, instead of just a regular god. I've provided research for why I disagree with your stance, and you've been unwilling to listen and Headbomb refused to discuss at all despite having inserted himself into the issue to double team an editor. I apologize for this malformed bug report you keep mentioning, it just said if you've had an issue click here and I added some notes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- So Darkwarriorblake is right, and everyone else is wrong. Even tho Darkwarriorblake has made multiple reverts, and even tho Darkwarriorblake's malformed "bug report" mistook[25] Rolling Stone magazine for the band the Rolling Stones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, I explained when you asked, and you started edit warring over in a double team with Headbomb, I don't think I started unreasonable, it was the two editors who refused to listed to anyone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Result: User:Darkwarriorblake is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at User talk:Headbomb to restore any message that Headbomb has removed. They may also be blocked if they revert again at Groundhog Day (film) before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. Per the argument at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 27#magazine vs website, Darkwarriorblake appears to be in disagreement with others as to when the citation bot should enter the phrase 'cite magazine' in a template. You need to take this to WP:Dispute resolution or admins may lose patience. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I did just have my 6th birthday. Time to play some GTA V.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're both behaving like children.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
User:90.235.103.0/24 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Semi)
Page: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.235.103.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Latest version as of report
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- /* Matches */
- /* Matches */
- Undid revision 1045450104 by JalenFolf (talk) Do not link to redirect pages!
- /* Matches */
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning: Edit warring on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to resolve were made on an IP Talk page.
Comments:
IP range continuously edit warring redirect bypasses despite warnings, discussions, and continued opposition by other editors. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Result: The page 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B has been semiprotected due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Onetwothreeip reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: Filer warned)
Page: Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- [32] (Complaint for failure to follow WP:BRD)
- [33] (Asking editor to self-revert)
- [34] (Edit warring warning)
- [35] (Note that the change should be made after the RfC is closed
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:}
- Talk:Juan Guaidó#Juan Guaido is not the President; Maduro is. (Discussion on the change)
- Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC: Is Juan Guaido still interim president of Venezuela? (Open Request for Comment)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Since 29 August 2021, Onetwothreeip has insisted in removing the position of Juan Guaidó as "(disputed) President of Venezuela", as the diffs above show. While this has been a contentious about which there are ongoing discussions and a change might take place, this has been the status quo of the article for two and a half years now and there are still editors that could participate in the discussion, meaning these reverts have been done before the consensus has been decided. It should be noted how Onetwothreeip claimed in their reverts that they were preventing a change to which there was no consensus to include. explained how this was "placing the cart before the horse", since they are the editor that wish to implement the change to a stable version, as it can be appreciated in the 19 August and older versions (which include the position in the infobox).
The editor has been asked to participate in the discussion, to self revert, warned against edit warred and asked for the RfC to be closed before making the change, to no avail. In some instances, they outright refused the requests. With all this considered, admin intervention seems to be required. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Result: The filer, User:NoonIcarus, is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Juan Guaidó unless they first get a consensus on the talk page in their favor. The current RfC on the talk page is *against* including the claim that Guaidó is the interim president of Venezuela. You have the option of requesting a formal closure at WP:AN/RFC. But for a simple claim with a one-sided vote and not many participants that seems unnecessary. If you think time will change the outcome, wait for it to do so before you revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Dinu1133 reported by User:Wretchskull (alt) (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dinu1133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user is edit-warring on this page and has also shown a long-term lack of WP:CIR and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The user does not communicate whatsoever, doesn't cooperate, and has never used his talk page or article talks. They erroneously change information and styles in many articles without any forethought or consensus, and often just adds the changes back after being reverted. They have also been warned multiple times at User talk:Dinu1133.
Comments:
I do not think this person should be on Wikipedia judging from their contributions. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQLQuery Me! 12:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Sunderland Renaissance reported by User:Rastinition (Result: )
Page: CGTN (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41][42]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[43][44]
Comments:
I know ANEW is here now.......--Rastinition (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS:It’s weird that Sunderland Renaissance use no consensus to overturn WP:CGTN.WP:CGTN is a consensus,right?--Rastinition (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Rastinition
- Rastinition (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)- Has violated 3RR and engaged in three reverts. This is a suspicious one day old account engaging in aggressive removal of references and highly disruptive editing across multiple controversial topics and reverting without proper consensus or discussion --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQLQuery Me! 12:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Aakash Singh India reported by User:MeraHBharat (Result: )
Page: Delhi–Mumbai Expressway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aakash Singh India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:[45]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[51]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[52]
Comments:
I see both users engaging in an edit war. One of them could have stopped it much earlier and start discussing, rather than continuing. Speaking of Aakash, two articles Purvanchal Expressway and Agra–Lucknow Expressway had to be fully protected due to an edit warring complaint. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer i was having no idea about, this user's past track record. but if that is the case, why this user is getting so much chances, why he is not blocked yet??? and one more thing, i had seen that Callanecc has protected the disputed page, but hasn't reverted aakash singh's edit, i thing this is unfair, you people should revert that page back to original, because in this way last edit on which page is still running is of aakash's, please intervene in this matter also.thank you. --MeraHBharat (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @MeraHBharat: Admins always protect articles at The Wrong Version. You are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page on the wording to be used in the article. After a consensus has been established, someone with sufficient privileges can edit the article to reflect the consensus. - Donald Albury 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
User:سارینا آریاوند reported by User:90 TV (Result: )
Page: Template:AFC Champions League seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: سارینا آریاوند (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
This user has just 4 edits in English Wikipedia and All of his edits are edit-wars. 90 TV (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Did you try to resolve the dispute instead of participating in the edit war? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring and constant reversions of 166.205.141.57 (Result: Malformed)
166.205.141.57 has engaged in edit warring with several different editors in an article about Bob Enyart. The editor was warned by another editor and myself on 166.205.141.57's Talk page and on the article's Talk page but the warring continues. I can see few, if any, of 166.205.141.57's edits in that article that have not been reverted by different editors. It is important to note, also, that 166.205.141.57 has made 26 edits on Wikipedia and 20 of them have been in the Bob Enyart article. 166.205.141.57 has returned - at least nine times within the last 24 hours - the same edit that has been removed by several different editors. It is difficult to ascertain if 166.205.141.57 is promoting a personal agenda or is simply having fun at the expense of other editors and Wikipedia, as a whole. My solution is to block 166.205.141.57 from editing privileges, at least on the Enyart article, although I would support blocking 166.205.141.57's access to editing the Enyart article and a temporary ban from Wikipedia editing until the editor has expressed, to a convincing degree, that they understand the errors they are making, proper Wikipedia policy, and that they will no longer engage in practices that violate the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Notice of this action has been place on 166.205.141.57's Talk page as required. UPDATE: Forgive me for updating within such a short time, but the edits made by this user have become so disruptive that it has become impossible to properly edit this article. I will make no further edits correcting this user's disruptive edits until an administrator has taken action. I do not want to get caught up in something that could damage my reputation here that I have spent more than 11 years gaining. However, we need some help in that article as soon as possible. This user has run all the other editors off. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will do. Never had to make such a complaint in all my years here. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
User:CaptainJaccuracy reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Nominator blocked 3 months)
Page: Anberlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CaptainJaccuracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
- 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
- 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
I don't not want to out the editor, but the edits by 24.121.182.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 66.185.226.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) use the same terminology. This is the same editor who will not take WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. Further requests on User talk:24.121.182.191. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "+"
- 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit summary triggering the edit filter on Anberlin."
- 00:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "unsigned and response"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Walter Görlitz, if CaptainJaccuracy has reverted twice, and you have reverted six times in the last 24 hours, which one of you is edit warring? – bradv🍁 01:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- CaptainJaccuracy and the anons are the same editor. They all refuse to supply a single source despite being asked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- And that's an excuse for edit warring? – bradv🍁 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz, in the past 24 hours you have also violated WP:3RR at Derek Sharp and The Guess Who. You have a total of 17 blocks for edit warring in your block log, yet you still seem to think the 3RR rule doesn't apply to you. I also vaguely recall having this conversation with you before, so I must ask, what is going on? – bradv🍁 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- And that's an excuse for edit warring? – bradv🍁 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- CaptainJaccuracy and the anons are the same editor. They all refuse to supply a single source despite being asked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 3 months for long-term edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
User:2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 reported by User:JellyMan9001 (Result: Range blocked 48h)
Page: Hispanic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
- Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Error"
- 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
- Consecutive edits made from 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Error, although the Philippines was apart of the Spanish empire at one point, the Philippines is not considered to be apart of the Hispanic world. This is because they have some Spanish influence but do not speak the language nor does their population have substantial mixture or cultural mixture to be considered Hispanic or Latin. They are considered Asian."
- 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */The article used as evidence that Hispanic applies to Philippines and pacific islands is not proof that they are referenced as Hispanic, this is because the article and other sections are opinion based."
- 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */The republic of the Philippines is considered and registered as an Asian nation."
- Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Hispanic was coined in the US stemming from Rome, however the term is not used to apply to all the territories that were apart of the Spanish empire. It’s was used as a classification in the US census in order to place European(Spanish)/Native American people of Latin American origin."
- 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Fixed typo and finished sentence."
- 02:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Hispanic was originally created in the US and applied to those of European/Native American ethnicity of Latin American origin, and is still applied in that sense."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hispanic."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC) on Hispanic "Reverted good faith edits by 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk): I think we should discuss this on the talk page before finalizing on a decision"
Comments: